list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Beauty and the Beast on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Beauty_and_the_Beast/2623/default.aspx Title: Beauty and the Beast
Year: 1991
Director: Gary Trousdale, Kirk Wise
Plot: Beauty And The Beast is widely considered the best animated Disney feature of the studio's 1980s/1990s renewal of the form. Based on the classic French fairy tale, it tells the story of Belle (voiced by Paige O'Hara), an intelligent young woman scorned by her townspeople for being a bookworm, weary of fighting off the advances of the arrogant Gaston (Richard White), and dreaming of escape. When her father gets lost in the woods and captured by the forbidding Beast (Robby Benson), a once-handsome prince turned into a monster by a witch, Belle goes off to rescue him. Taken with her, the Beast agrees to release Belle's father if she agrees to stay with him forever. Initially repulsed, Belle soon finds much to appreciate in the Beast's hidden, tender nature. The Beast's servants -- a clock (David Ogden Stiers), a teapot (Angela Lansbury), and a candlestick (Jerry Orbach) -- see Belle as their salvation: if the Beast and a woman fall in love before his 21st birthday, he will be free from the curse. The songs are first-class, the tale is told with sincerity but not sentimentality, and the characters of Belle and the Beast, complex individuals who defy stereotyping and change over the course of the story, are more three-dimensional than in most live-action movies. The eye-popping animation is beautifully rendered, and Beauty And The Beast certainly deserves its place amongst Disney's animated classics. In 2002, a special 89-minute edition of the film was released in IMAX theaters with the addition of a newly animated song, "Human Again." ~ Don Kaye, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 218
Number of Lists: 73
Number of blog posts: 3
Number of discussion threads: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:01:14 GMTBeauty and the Beast1991Gary Trousdale, Kirk WiseBeauty And The Beast is widely considered the best animated Disney feature of the studio's 1980s/1990s renewal of the form. Based on the classic French fairy tale, it tells the story of Belle (voiced by Paige O'Hara), an intelligent young woman scorned by her townspeople for being a bookworm, weary of fighting off the advances of the arrogant Gaston (Richard White), and dreaming of escape. When her father gets lost in the woods and captured by the forbidding Beast (<a href="/players/P____81455/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robby Benson</a>), a once-handsome prince turned into a monster by a witch, Belle goes off to rescue him. Taken with her, the Beast agrees to release Belle's father if she agrees to stay with him forever. Initially repulsed, Belle soon finds much to appreciate in the Beast's hidden, tender nature. The Beast's servants -- a clock (<a href="/players/P____68305/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>David Ogden Stiers</a>), a teapot (<a href="/players/P____40519/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Angela Lansbury</a>), and a candlestick (<a href="/players/P____54172/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jerry Orbach</a>) -- see Belle as their salvation: if the Beast and a woman fall in love before his 21st birthday, he will be free from the curse. The songs are first-class, the tale is told with sincerity but not sentimentality, and the characters of Belle and the Beast, complex individuals who defy stereotyping and change over the course of the story, are more three-dimensional than in most live-action movies. The eye-popping animation is beautifully rendered, and Beauty And The Beast certainly deserves its place amongst Disney's animated classics. In 2002, a special 89-minute edition of the film was released in IMAX theaters with the addition of a newly animated song, "Human Again." ~ Don Kaye, All Movie Guide218Tag Target (>10)73343http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t25035z00cq.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Beauty_and_the_Beast/2623/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/hautecritique/archive/2009/7/18/43184.aspx Post By: hautecritique
Post To: The Haute Critique on Spout
Post Date: 7/18/2009 6:01:14 PM
Body: I’ve seen all the Harry Potter movies, but I am decidedly a muggle. In fact, if you are not a muggle, you have already seen this movie and discussed it ad nauseam with fellow wizards. I don’t mean that pejoratively. My wife, Mrs. Gravity, is pure magic. It was with her and a few other magic folk that I went to the matinee showing of Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince. Six posters lose the plot For a weekday showing, it was well attended. Once the strains of the familiar score started dancing in the dark, the theater was ready, more like longing, to be entranced. The familiar feeling doesn’t stop with the score. We begin with cryptic warnings of danger and doom from Professor Dumbledore. Harry, feeling cryptic warning fatigue, goes along with Dumbledore compliantly, and without a great deal of concern. And, so does the audience. Yes, there will be danger and the fate of the world will be decided in the balance. We understand all that, now let’s get on with the movie, shall we? It is a great first pitch. Movie after movie we start with a similar setup. We are older and wiser. So is Harry. This matched emotion between viewer and Harry, however, is quickly betrayed. In the first real scene of magic (Other than warping around Britain and turning a wand into a flashlight), Dumbledore goes Mary Poppins and cleans up someone’s house. Harry is *stunned*. Speechlessly he dodges plates returning to the cupboard. His jaw drops as light bulbs change themselves. Surely not! This can’t be possible!?! What happened to that world weary teenager that was a scarf and some eye-liner away from writing some brutally insipid emo poetry? Suddenly he is acting like Belle from Beauty and the Beast. This kid has fought demons. He has seen death. He owns a flippin’ invisibility cloak, but somehow an automatic garage door opener suddenly looks like the work of some unicorn woodland nymph fairy. That rant aside, the film looks great. The slick polish and epic transitions really do build an enveloping world. And whether it is Charlie’s Angels or Iron Man, all blockbusters look a little better through the green filter. The fantasy world looks fantastic, which by some mathematical principle distributes a genuine feeling of place. The stone walls are massive and the snow, pure white. Post production twinkle isn’t the only fairy dust on screen. There is a smorgasbord of puppy love and subdued horn-doggery. The giggling, flirting, crying and pouting are actually really well done; and so many flavors. There are more ‘love’ stories than I can enumerate. Each arc trickles through the first half of the film, like a Plinko chip on The Price is Right, it bounces playfully from peg to peg. Even when the outcome is formulaic, our inner school kid cracks a little smile. Eventually, Dumbledore sighs,”Oh, to be young and feel love’s keen sting.” (or something like that) All of the Sadie Hawkins romance does squeeze any momentum out of the macho storyline. Remember how the fate of the world hangs in the balance? Yeah, that thing. The straining balance totters back and forth. Once the doom and gloom really gets marching, the mushy bits are put on pause, never to be revisited. But the oscillating tone truly does damage to the crown jewel of the whole Harry Potter series. Like I said, I never read the books, but, almost everyone I know did. And when Half-Blood Prince came out, one scene was read and re-read through tear filled eyes. Not just eyes of babes, but adults who felt magic had been left behind long ago. In that moment, the Harry Potter spell was its most tangible. On the road to this revelation there are many scenes of graphic, jarring action and juiced up puppy love presented with flair and acumen. Then, when the time comes, the film simply doesn’t include the books climax. Oh, it happens (and if you have the faintest idea of the plot of this volume of the Harry Potter saga, you know what ‘it’ is). The team that made this picture gets to check that box. The deed is done. However, for someone that didn’t read the book, even being lit up with the spirit, primed for empathy, it seemed pedestrian. For my party of magic folk, it was simply heretical. To me, it was boring. Before we close the book, a couple of parting shout outs. The brightest spot for me was Luna Lovegood. She pops up as if she is a shared hallucination. An ephemeral, and not completely there, sprite. A bubbly lemon-lime refreshment that pops up when the rest of the plot starts getting dry. A bit of lunatic charm that says,”Don’t worry. You’re just as sane as me.” The other part worth mentioning is the liquid luck. It is a potion that brings success in all endeavors to whomever drinks it, until it wears off. We quickly imagine that the potion transforms the drinker into the toast of the town. The director then hints deeper that the effects include a hyper alertness and a suave macho aggression. Then a funny thing happens. We learn that the potion, in truth, gets you totally baked. That’s right. Drinking liquid luck is like pigging out at Willie Nelson’s brownie bar. And, for some viewers, it is another glimpse of the talent this director has with perfect empathy. Unfortunately, that too wears off. As we wandered out of the multi-plex, back towards parking spot 9 3/4, the magic folk cooly dismissed the effort. For my part, while liquid luck helped some of the film succeed, it wasn’t enough to catapult it into haute cinema. No related posts. Originally posted on:The Haute Critique
]]>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:01:14 GMThautecritiqueThe Haute Critique on Spout7/18/2009 6:01:14 PMI’ve seen all the Harry Potter movies, but I am decidedly a muggle. In fact, if you are not a muggle, you have already seen this movie and discussed it ad nauseam with fellow wizards. I don’t mean that pejoratively. My wife, Mrs. Gravity, is pure magic. It was with her and a few other magic folk that I went to the matinee showing of Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince. Six posters lose the plot For a weekday showing, it was well attended. Once the strains of the familiar score started dancing in the dark, the theater was ready, more like longing, to be entranced. The familiar feeling doesn’t stop with the score. We begin with cryptic warnings of danger and doom from Professor Dumbledore. Harry, feeling cryptic warning fatigue, goes along with Dumbledore compliantly, and without a great deal of concern. And, so does the audience. Yes, there will be danger and the fate of the world will be decided in the balance. We understand all that, now let’s get on with the movie, shall we? It is a great first pitch. Movie after movie we start with a similar setup. We are older and wiser. So is Harry. This matched emotion between viewer and Harry, however, is quickly betrayed. In the first real scene of magic (Other than warping around Britain and turning a wand into a flashlight), Dumbledore goes Mary Poppins and cleans up someone’s house. Harry is *stunned*. Speechlessly he dodges plates returning to the cupboard. His jaw drops as light bulbs change themselves. Surely not! This can’t be possible!?! What happened to that world weary teenager that was a scarf and some eye-liner away from writing some brutally insipid emo poetry? Suddenly he is acting like Belle from Beauty and the Beast. This kid has fought demons. He has seen death. He owns a flippin’ invisibility cloak, but somehow an automatic garage door opener suddenly looks like the work of some unicorn woodland nymph fairy. That rant aside, the film looks great. The slick polish and epic transitions really do build an enveloping world. And whether it is Charlie’s Angels or Iron Man, all blockbusters look a little better through the green filter. The fantasy world looks fantastic, which by some mathematical principle distributes a genuine feeling of place. The stone walls are massive and the snow, pure white. Post production twinkle isn’t the only fairy dust on screen. There is a smorgasbord of puppy love and subdued horn-doggery. The giggling, flirting, crying and pouting are actually really well done; and so many flavors. There are more ‘love’ stories than I can enumerate. Each arc trickles through the first half of the film, like a Plinko chip on The Price is Right, it bounces playfully from peg to peg. Even when the outcome is formulaic, our inner school kid cracks a little smile. Eventually, Dumbledore sighs,”Oh, to be young and feel love’s keen sting.” (or something like that) All of the Sadie Hawkins romance does squeeze any momentum out of the macho storyline. Remember how the fate of the world hangs in the balance? Yeah, that thing. The straining balance totters back and forth. Once the doom and gloom really gets marching, the mushy bits are put on pause, never to be revisited. But the oscillating tone truly does damage to the crown jewel of the whole Harry Potter series. Like I said, I never read the books, but, almost everyone I know did. And when Half-Blood Prince came out, one scene was read and re-read through tear filled eyes. Not just eyes of babes, but adults who felt magic had been left behind long ago. In that moment, the Harry Potter spell was its most tangible. On the road to this revelation there are many scenes of graphic, jarring action and juiced up puppy love presented with flair and acumen. Then, when the time comes, the film simply doesn’t include the books climax. Oh, it happens (and if you have the faintest idea of the plot of this volume of the Harry Potter saga, you know what ‘it’ is). The team that made this picture gets to check that box. The deed is done. However, for someone that didn’t read the book, even being lit up with the spirit, primed for empathy, it seemed pedestrian. For my party of magic folk, it was simply heretical. To me, it was boring. Before we close the book, a couple of parting shout outs. The brightest spot for me was Luna Lovegood. She pops up as if she is a shared hallucination. An ephemeral, and not completely there, sprite. A bubbly lemon-lime refreshment that pops up when the rest of the plot starts getting dry. A bit of lunatic charm that says,”Don’t worry. You’re just as sane as me.” The other part worth mentioning is the liquid luck. It is a potion that brings success in all endeavors to whomever drinks it, until it wears off. We quickly imagine that the potion transforms the drinker into the toast of the town. The director then hints deeper that the effects include a hyper alertness and a suave macho aggression. Then a funny thing happens. We learn that the potion, in truth, gets you totally baked. That’s right. Drinking liquid luck is like pigging out at Willie Nelson’s brownie bar. And, for some viewers, it is another glimpse of the talent this director has with perfect empathy. Unfortunately, that too wears off. As we wandered out of the multi-plex, back towards parking spot 9 3/4, the magic folk cooly dismissed the effort. For my part, while liquid luck helped some of the film succeed, it wasn’t enough to catapult it into haute cinema. No related posts. Originally posted on:The Haute Critique http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/7/39219.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/7/2009 5:00:47 PM
Body: It’s only a couple of short weeks before the 2008 Oscar nominees are announced, and the internet is abuzz with prognostications. One hotly debated topic is whether or not Wall-E can pull off a Best Picture nomination, or even a win. It would be the second animated film to be nominated in the category, after Beauty and the Beast, which got the honor before the Animated Feature prize existed. Will the stodgy old Academy seat Wall-E at the kid’s table, giving it an easy win in the animation category, or will it be allowed to play with the big boys? A best pic nomination for Wall-E would be a rare honor for animation in general, but it would also be a long over due rarity for another reason: Wall-E would only be the second best pic nominated film in the history of the Oscars to be set in the future. The only one to date is A Clockwork Orange. When you consider how many nominees are period pieces (I didn’t care to count), this represents a massive bias on the part of the Academy. It’s clear that they love the past, but they hate the future. What would the history of the Academy Awards look like if the Hollywood elite wasn’t terrified of speculative fiction? Below, seven movies about the future that should have been nominated for Best Picture: 1. Metropolis The first Academy Awards, held in 1929, gave honors to films produced in both 1928 and 1927, so this should have at least been nominated. Of course the nomination process was rather primitive back then, and American audiences probably wouldn’t have been familiar with German films such as this, but for the purpose of revisionist history, we’ll say it got snubbed. There’s something very 20th century about Art Deco skyscrapers and class conflict, but Metropolis‘ depiction of 2026 still feels relevant today. The film laid the ground work for countless sci-fi tropes, including sexy female androids (see #5). 2. On The Beach This 1959 post-apocalyptic drama stars Gregory Peck as the captain of a US submarine stationed in Melbourne. Set in the near future of 1964, nuclear war has wiped out the rest of the planet, and it’s only a matter of months before the wind brings the deadly radioactive fallout to Australia. The film is a beautiful meditation on the inevitability of death, featuring a solid performance by Ava Gardner, and the most melancholy work by Fred Astaire I’ve ever seen (he does not sing or dance). On the Beach was nominated for both Best Score and Best Editing Oscars, and director Stanley Kramer won a BAFTA. 3. 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick’s masterpiece wasn’t completely snubbed; it received four Oscar nominations, with a win for Visual Effects. But the fact that it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination is criminal. The film is consistently listed on top 100 movie lists, and breaks the top ten on plenty of them. It’s clear that something went very wrong that year. Perhaps the snub can be blamed on the fact that the film was so far ahead of its time, that many people just didn’t get it. Pauline Kael said it was “a monumentally unimaginative movie.” 4. Solaris This 1972 Russian science fiction film is just as cerebral as 2001, and perhaps an even deeper plumb of the human psyche. The Palme d’Or nominated film, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, follows the story of psychologist Chris Kelvin as he ventures to a distant space station, orbiting the water-covered planet Solaris. The station has fallen into disarray, and Kelvin soon figures out why. An apparition of his dead wife appears, apparently created by Solaris using Kelvin’s brain waves. The film is slow and introspective, and is one of those rare gems of science fiction that transcends the trappings of the genre. It should have at least been nominated for Best Foreign Language Film; instead, it wasn’t nominated for anything. 5. Blade Runner For some, saying that Blade Runner was one of the five best films of 1982 is stating the obvious. Perhaps the blending of sci-fi and noir seemed at the time to be nothing more than a cheap genre gimmick. But the enduring quality of Blade Runner makes it clear that it deserved more than the two nominations in received for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects. The snub of Blade Runner is perhaps the best way to prove the Academy’s bias toward the past, when you consider that Ridley Scott’s 2000 film, Gladiator was not only nominated for Best Picture, but it won! I repeat, Gladiator won Best Picture, while Blade Runner was not even nominated. Which did you think was the better movie? 6. Brazil Terry Gilliam’s dystopian black comedy might have had a shot at few Academy awards if Gilliam hadn’t burned every bridge in Hollywood as he made it. The film operates in the dystopian mold cast by 1984, with a healthy dose of dark humor and fantasy. It’s one of the most egregious examples of a studio re-cutting a film and essentially destroying it in the process. Fortunately, Gilliam’s cut is readily available on DVD now, but the director’s trustworthiness in Hollywood is still highly suspect. Gilliam is one of those filmmakers who, no matter how good a movie he makes, will never be welcomed into the inner sanctum. Still, Brazil deserved a Best Picture nomination. 7. Children of Men When the 2006 Best Picture nominees were announced, you may have heard a faint stream of cursing on the wind. That was me. I know that people tend to win Oscars when they’re “due,” which easily explains why The Departed took home the top prize, but the fact that Children of Men wasn’t even nominated is just silly. It was nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing, which is the Academy’s way of saying, “Wow, this movie is incredible, but it’s about the future, so let’s only honor that one really long take near the end.” Bullshit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:00:47 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/7/2009 5:00:47 PMIt’s only a couple of short weeks before the 2008 Oscar nominees are announced, and the internet is abuzz with prognostications. One hotly debated topic is whether or not Wall-E can pull off a Best Picture nomination, or even a win. It would be the second animated film to be nominated in the category, after Beauty and the Beast, which got the honor before the Animated Feature prize existed. Will the stodgy old Academy seat Wall-E at the kid’s table, giving it an easy win in the animation category, or will it be allowed to play with the big boys? A best pic nomination for Wall-E would be a rare honor for animation in general, but it would also be a long over due rarity for another reason: Wall-E would only be the second best pic nominated film in the history of the Oscars to be set in the future. The only one to date is A Clockwork Orange. When you consider how many nominees are period pieces (I didn’t care to count), this represents a massive bias on the part of the Academy. It’s clear that they love the past, but they hate the future. What would the history of the Academy Awards look like if the Hollywood elite wasn’t terrified of speculative fiction? Below, seven movies about the future that should have been nominated for Best Picture: 1. Metropolis The first Academy Awards, held in 1929, gave honors to films produced in both 1928 and 1927, so this should have at least been nominated. Of course the nomination process was rather primitive back then, and American audiences probably wouldn’t have been familiar with German films such as this, but for the purpose of revisionist history, we’ll say it got snubbed. There’s something very 20th century about Art Deco skyscrapers and class conflict, but Metropolis‘ depiction of 2026 still feels relevant today. The film laid the ground work for countless sci-fi tropes, including sexy female androids (see #5). 2. On The Beach This 1959 post-apocalyptic drama stars Gregory Peck as the captain of a US submarine stationed in Melbourne. Set in the near future of 1964, nuclear war has wiped out the rest of the planet, and it’s only a matter of months before the wind brings the deadly radioactive fallout to Australia. The film is a beautiful meditation on the inevitability of death, featuring a solid performance by Ava Gardner, and the most melancholy work by Fred Astaire I’ve ever seen (he does not sing or dance). On the Beach was nominated for both Best Score and Best Editing Oscars, and director Stanley Kramer won a BAFTA. 3. 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick’s masterpiece wasn’t completely snubbed; it received four Oscar nominations, with a win for Visual Effects. But the fact that it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination is criminal. The film is consistently listed on top 100 movie lists, and breaks the top ten on plenty of them. It’s clear that something went very wrong that year. Perhaps the snub can be blamed on the fact that the film was so far ahead of its time, that many people just didn’t get it. Pauline Kael said it was “a monumentally unimaginative movie.” 4. Solaris This 1972 Russian science fiction film is just as cerebral as 2001, and perhaps an even deeper plumb of the human psyche. The Palme d’Or nominated film, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, follows the story of psychologist Chris Kelvin as he ventures to a distant space station, orbiting the water-covered planet Solaris. The station has fallen into disarray, and Kelvin soon figures out why. An apparition of his dead wife appears, apparently created by Solaris using Kelvin’s brain waves. The film is slow and introspective, and is one of those rare gems of science fiction that transcends the trappings of the genre. It should have at least been nominated for Best Foreign Language Film; instead, it wasn’t nominated for anything. 5. Blade Runner For some, saying that Blade Runner was one of the five best films of 1982 is stating the obvious. Perhaps the blending of sci-fi and noir seemed at the time to be nothing more than a cheap genre gimmick. But the enduring quality of Blade Runner makes it clear that it deserved more than the two nominations in received for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects. The snub of Blade Runner is perhaps the best way to prove the Academy’s bias toward the past, when you consider that Ridley Scott’s 2000 film, Gladiator was not only nominated for Best Picture, but it won! I repeat, Gladiator won Best Picture, while Blade Runner was not even nominated. Which did you think was the better movie? 6. Brazil Terry Gilliam’s dystopian black comedy might have had a shot at few Academy awards if Gilliam hadn’t burned every bridge in Hollywood as he made it. The film operates in the dystopian mold cast by 1984, with a healthy dose of dark humor and fantasy. It’s one of the most egregious examples of a studio re-cutting a film and essentially destroying it in the process. Fortunately, Gilliam’s cut is readily available on DVD now, but the director’s trustworthiness in Hollywood is still highly suspect. Gilliam is one of those filmmakers who, no matter how good a movie he makes, will never be welcomed into the inner sanctum. Still, Brazil deserved a Best Picture nomination. 7. Children of Men When the 2006 Best Picture nominees were announced, you may have heard a faint stream of cursing on the wind. That was me. I know that people tend to win Oscars when they’re “due,” which easily explains why The Departed took home the top prize, but the fact that Children of Men wasn’t even nominated is just silly. It was nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing, which is the Academy’s way of saying, “Wow, this movie is incredible, but it’s about the future, so let’s only honor that one really long take near the end.” Bullshit. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/8/38088.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/8/2008 5:00:35 PM
Body: It’s beginning to look a lot like 1991. A former Disney starlet is on track for a Best Actress nomination. One of cinema’s greatest villainous performances is a sure thing for an acting Oscar. And, due to a relatively disappointing crop of Academy Award contenders, an animated feature is being talked about for Best Picture. One major difference between now and 1991, however, is now there’s a separate Oscar category for Best Animated Feature. While that doesn’t mean Wall-E can’t be the first animated film nominated in the top category since Beauty and the Beast, it does potentially mean that it shouldn’t be. Historically, animated features have been marginalized by the Academy, though not unfairly. The first of its kind in the U.S., Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was not adequately recognized at the 1938 Oscars, so the Academy gave Disney a special Honorary Award (in the form of one normal-sized statuette and seven miniature statuettes) in 1939 to make up for it. The official credit given to Snow White was that it was a “significant screen innovation,” that “pioneered a great new entertainment field.” Basically, but not technically, this designated animated features as a new, separate art form from live-action motion pictures. Fantasia was similarly set apart a few years later with two Honorary Awards spotlighting the film’s achievements in sound and music, yet this time credit was given to the film for “widening the scope of the motion picture as entertainment and as an art form.” Still, for almost fifty years, the closest an animated feature came to being nominated inclusively in such a scope for Best Picture were live-action films incorporating animation, such as Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins. It should have officially been made clearer in the 1930s or 1940s that animated features are in a class of their own. Since 1932, the Academy has differentiated between animation and live-action with its short subject categories, but no corresponding distinction was ever made for features, possibly because there weren’t enough animated features to recognize with a separate award for many decades. Even today, the Best Animated Feature Oscar is only given if there are a certain number (eight) of animated features eligible in that year. Thanks to the Best Animated Feature Oscar, though, there is greater encouragement for the mainstream production of this kind of film and also a greater acknowledgement of foreign feature animation. Some critics might argue that it seems to lower the esteem of animated features, yet the creation of the category was in fact pushed for by animators, according to the AMPAS press release announcing its inception (the animators’ campaign, spearheaded mostly by Dreamworks Animation’s Jeffrey Katzenberg, was apparently fueled by the snub of Chicken Run as Best Picture in 2001). The Academy’s error, then, was in continuing to allow animated features to be eligible for Best Picture rather than renaming that “top” category Best Live-Action Picture. Now, if Wall-E or any other animated film is recognized in that category, the Best Animated Feature Oscar will indeed appear to be a lesser honor. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says the existence of the Animated Feature category creates a sort of psychological effect, which blocks voters from considering an animated feature for Best Picture. However, with enough campaigning from Disney and plenty of prodding from the media (blogs especially), Wall-E may have sufficient placement in the consciousness of Academy members to allow such a nomination to happen. The call for a Best Picture nod for the film has been around and growing since New York magazine’s Vulture blog first championed the idea back in June, writing that it “would be the smartest thing the Academy’s done in years.” For ratings, perhaps, but individual members themselves do not think of nor are they encouraged to consider telecast viewership when marking their ballots. As a celebration of great filmmaking, though, it would be smarter for voters to acknowledge Wall-E’s place and prestige as a front-runner in the Best Animated Feature category and then pick another deserving film, which isn’t likely to be recognized elsewhere, to nominate as Best Picture. For example, how about a popular and critically acclaimed foreign film that hasn’t been submitted for consideration in the foreign-language category, such as Tell No One or Let the Right One In? In July, Time magazine, which referred to the separate Animated Feature category as “Oscar’s cartoon ghetto,” began sampling quotes from supporters like New York and went so far as to call the film an “Obamaesque trailblazer.” In some way, Wall-E could resonate with Academy voters with relation to Obama, but perhaps only because it is one of the few hopeful, feel-good movies contending at a time when Bush–inspired negativity is supposedly no longer welcome (New York writer Logan Hill also acknowledged Best Picture candidate Slumdog Millionaire as similarly fitting the optimism bill after Fox Searchlight’s COO referred to the film as “Obama-like”). And maybe the environmentalist theme of Wall-E will be heavily supported by liberal Academy members, but ultimately the film seems even more preachy and, at times, dystopic than even The Dark Knight, let alone An Inconvenient Truth (which, by the way, had to settle on Oscar’s documentary ghetto and wasn’t considered Best Picture material, either). One significant point against the likelihood Wall-E receiving a Best Picture nomination was noted by Anne Thompson at Variety: actors tend to vote for live-action films because they feature live actors. Surely actors, forever in fear of being replaced by computer-generated characters, look at an eerily realistically rendered computer-animated film like Wall-E and contemplate the worst for their profession. Still, on the other hand, actors could actually celebrate Pixar for making an animated film that incorporates live actors (a kind of reversal of Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins, no?). But if actors want to pay respect to this technique, they should completely surprise Oscar prognosticators (and pay them back for another 2001 snub) by nominating Fred Willard for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe Wall-E is one of the best films of 2008, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be recommended for a Best Picture nomination. The Oscars are never an exact or fair measure of a year’s best in cinema, and even Oscar bloggers should be aware of the politics and logic of the Academy. This is the same organization that, for its first awards, ruled The Jazz Singer ineligible for Best Picture (or “Best Production” as it was named then) because it had the unfair advantage of being a sound film. Instead, the landmark film received a Special Award (almost like Disney received in 1939). Perhaps it is best, then, to think of animated features as also having an unfair advantage. After all, particularly with computer animation, they allow for more ease in certain aspects of direction, cinematography and special effects. In that case, let us, if not the Academy, view the Best Animated Feature category as the actual “top” category and shake off this unnecessary desire for an animated film to win “Best Picture.” Now, can we re-channel our energy into campaigning for Wall-E to be nominated in other categories, like Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:00:35 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/8/2008 5:00:35 PMIt’s beginning to look a lot like 1991. A former Disney starlet is on track for a Best Actress nomination. One of cinema’s greatest villainous performances is a sure thing for an acting Oscar. And, due to a relatively disappointing crop of Academy Award contenders, an animated feature is being talked about for Best Picture. One major difference between now and 1991, however, is now there’s a separate Oscar category for Best Animated Feature. While that doesn’t mean Wall-E can’t be the first animated film nominated in the top category since Beauty and the Beast, it does potentially mean that it shouldn’t be. Historically, animated features have been marginalized by the Academy, though not unfairly. The first of its kind in the U.S., Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was not adequately recognized at the 1938 Oscars, so the Academy gave Disney a special Honorary Award (in the form of one normal-sized statuette and seven miniature statuettes) in 1939 to make up for it. The official credit given to Snow White was that it was a “significant screen innovation,” that “pioneered a great new entertainment field.” Basically, but not technically, this designated animated features as a new, separate art form from live-action motion pictures. Fantasia was similarly set apart a few years later with two Honorary Awards spotlighting the film’s achievements in sound and music, yet this time credit was given to the film for “widening the scope of the motion picture as entertainment and as an art form.” Still, for almost fifty years, the closest an animated feature came to being nominated inclusively in such a scope for Best Picture were live-action films incorporating animation, such as Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins. It should have officially been made clearer in the 1930s or 1940s that animated features are in a class of their own. Since 1932, the Academy has differentiated between animation and live-action with its short subject categories, but no corresponding distinction was ever made for features, possibly because there weren’t enough animated features to recognize with a separate award for many decades. Even today, the Best Animated Feature Oscar is only given if there are a certain number (eight) of animated features eligible in that year. Thanks to the Best Animated Feature Oscar, though, there is greater encouragement for the mainstream production of this kind of film and also a greater acknowledgement of foreign feature animation. Some critics might argue that it seems to lower the esteem of animated features, yet the creation of the category was in fact pushed for by animators, according to the AMPAS press release announcing its inception (the animators’ campaign, spearheaded mostly by Dreamworks Animation’s Jeffrey Katzenberg, was apparently fueled by the snub of Chicken Run as Best Picture in 2001). The Academy’s error, then, was in continuing to allow animated features to be eligible for Best Picture rather than renaming that “top” category Best Live-Action Picture. Now, if Wall-E or any other animated film is recognized in that category, the Best Animated Feature Oscar will indeed appear to be a lesser honor. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says the existence of the Animated Feature category creates a sort of psychological effect, which blocks voters from considering an animated feature for Best Picture. However, with enough campaigning from Disney and plenty of prodding from the media (blogs especially), Wall-E may have sufficient placement in the consciousness of Academy members to allow such a nomination to happen. The call for a Best Picture nod for the film has been around and growing since New York magazine’s Vulture blog first championed the idea back in June, writing that it “would be the smartest thing the Academy’s done in years.” For ratings, perhaps, but individual members themselves do not think of nor are they encouraged to consider telecast viewership when marking their ballots. As a celebration of great filmmaking, though, it would be smarter for voters to acknowledge Wall-E’s place and prestige as a front-runner in the Best Animated Feature category and then pick another deserving film, which isn’t likely to be recognized elsewhere, to nominate as Best Picture. For example, how about a popular and critically acclaimed foreign film that hasn’t been submitted for consideration in the foreign-language category, such as Tell No One or Let the Right One In? In July, Time magazine, which referred to the separate Animated Feature category as “Oscar’s cartoon ghetto,” began sampling quotes from supporters like New York and went so far as to call the film an “Obamaesque trailblazer.” In some way, Wall-E could resonate with Academy voters with relation to Obama, but perhaps only because it is one of the few hopeful, feel-good movies contending at a time when Bush–inspired negativity is supposedly no longer welcome (New York writer Logan Hill also acknowledged Best Picture candidate Slumdog Millionaire as similarly fitting the optimism bill after Fox Searchlight’s COO referred to the film as “Obama-like”). And maybe the environmentalist theme of Wall-E will be heavily supported by liberal Academy members, but ultimately the film seems even more preachy and, at times, dystopic than even The Dark Knight, let alone An Inconvenient Truth (which, by the way, had to settle on Oscar’s documentary ghetto and wasn’t considered Best Picture material, either). One significant point against the likelihood Wall-E receiving a Best Picture nomination was noted by Anne Thompson at Variety: actors tend to vote for live-action films because they feature live actors. Surely actors, forever in fear of being replaced by computer-generated characters, look at an eerily realistically rendered computer-animated film like Wall-E and contemplate the worst for their profession. Still, on the other hand, actors could actually celebrate Pixar for making an animated film that incorporates live actors (a kind of reversal of Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins, no?). But if actors want to pay respect to this technique, they should completely surprise Oscar prognosticators (and pay them back for another 2001 snub) by nominating Fred Willard for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe Wall-E is one of the best films of 2008, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be recommended for a Best Picture nomination. The Oscars are never an exact or fair measure of a year’s best in cinema, and even Oscar bloggers should be aware of the politics and logic of the Academy. This is the same organization that, for its first awards, ruled The Jazz Singer ineligible for Best Picture (or “Best Production” as it was named then) because it had the unfair advantage of being a sound film. Instead, the landmark film received a Special Award (almost like Disney received in 1939). Perhaps it is best, then, to think of animated features as also having an unfair advantage. After all, particularly with computer animation, they allow for more ease in certain aspects of direction, cinematography and special effects. In that case, let us, if not the Academy, view the Best Animated Feature category as the actual “top” category and shake off this unnecessary desire for an animated film to win “Best Picture.” Now, can we re-channel our energy into campaigning for Wall-E to be nominated in other categories, like Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_July_14_The_Angry_Mob/625/32646/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/16/2008 6:38:31 PM
Body: [quote user="csprague"] Hey there, So, Abby stole my Beauty and the Beast idea, that's my favorite mob sequence ("Kill the beast! Kill the beast!"). The other one that came to mind was from my recent viewing of Marie Antoinette with Kirsten Dunst, the mob is pretty convincingly starving and wants to kill the royal family. [/quote] For some reason, the B$B "Kill the beast" chant reminds me a lot of the Jesus Christ Superstar "Cru-si-fy Him, Cru-si-fy Him!!!!" part.
]]>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:38:31 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme7/16/2008 6:38:31 PM[quote user="csprague"] Hey there, So, Abby stole my Beauty and the Beast idea, that's my favorite mob sequence ("Kill the beast! Kill the beast!"). The other one that came to mind was from my recent viewing of Marie Antoinette with Kirsten Dunst, the mob is pretty convincingly starving and wants to kill the royal family. [/quote] For some reason, the B$B "Kill the beast" chant reminds me a lot of the Jesus Christ Superstar "Cru-si-fy Him, Cru-si-fy Him!!!!" part. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_July_14_The_Angry_Mob/625/32519/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: csprague
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/14/2008 10:15:25 AM
Body: Hey there, So, Abby stole my Beauty and the Beast idea, that's my favorite mob sequence ("Kill the beast! Kill the beast!"). The other one that came to mind was from my recent viewing of Marie Antoinette with Kirsten Dunst, the mob is pretty convincingly starving and wants to kill the royal family.
]]>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:15:25 GMTcspragueWeekly Theme7/14/2008 10:15:25 AMHey there, So, Abby stole my Beauty and the Beast idea, that's my favorite mob sequence ("Kill the beast! Kill the beast!"). The other one that came to mind was from my recent viewing of Marie Antoinette with Kirsten Dunst, the mob is pretty convincingly starving and wants to kill the royal family. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_July_14_The_Angry_Mob/625/32512/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/14/2008 12:19:02 AM
Body: I just finished watching The Mist, a movie which I think would qualify as having an angry mob. I don't want to put in any spoilers, but there is one particular scene that puts that "pissed-off masses screaming for blood" feeling right out there. If you've seen the film, you'll know what I'm talking about. Let me just say that I don't think I've yelled at characters onscreen so much in any other movie I've ever seen. The Mist is a movie that begs for knee-jerk reaction in just about every single frame. I wanted to throttle Marcia Gay Harden by the end of that thing. Then, of course, we've got the lovely musical sequence in Disney's Beauty and the Beast (I've never seen a more melodic mob) and movies like Frankenstein and the odious Van Helsing (which it inspired) These are examples (though, albeit, not all good ones--it's late, throw me a bone!) of the panicked mob acting ridiculously out of fear, some rational, some irrational. But there's the second kind of angry mob movie, too, the Braveheart-style mobs, the ones that rise up and rebel, and usually end up getting slaughtered and climbing down from their barricades with their tails between their legs. This might be kind of a stretch, but I'm going to go ahead and put Les Miserables in this category, too.
]]>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:19:02 GMTindieabby88Weekly Theme7/14/2008 12:19:02 AMI just finished watching The Mist, a movie which I think would qualify as having an angry mob. I don't want to put in any spoilers, but there is one particular scene that puts that "pissed-off masses screaming for blood" feeling right out there. If you've seen the film, you'll know what I'm talking about. Let me just say that I don't think I've yelled at characters onscreen so much in any other movie I've ever seen. The Mist is a movie that begs for knee-jerk reaction in just about every single frame. I wanted to throttle Marcia Gay Harden by the end of that thing. Then, of course, we've got the lovely musical sequence in Disney's Beauty and the Beast (I've never seen a more melodic mob) and movies like Frankenstein and the odious Van Helsing (which it inspired) These are examples (though, albeit, not all good ones--it's late, throw me a bone!) of the panicked mob acting ridiculously out of fear, some rational, some irrational. But there's the second kind of angry mob movie, too, the Braveheart-style mobs, the ones that rise up and rebel, and usually end up getting slaughtered and climbing down from their barricades with their tails between their legs. This might be kind of a stretch, but I'm going to go ahead and put Les Miserables in this category, too. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_top_five_movies_that_scared_the_crap_out_of_you/190/30313/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: nikolarulz
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 6/2/2008 8:55:01 AM
Body: OK, so here are mine: 1. Beauty and the Beast - OMG, especially the first five minutes with the creepy prologue... It really was scary! 2. Amadeus - The part when Salieri poses as Mozart's father... Guess I was too young to understand the concept, so I was ultra scared! 3. Titanic - Especially the opening underwater shots, with the broken doll on the ocean floor. 4. The Lion King - Of course, the part when Scar kills Mufasa. 5. Cabaret - When the two lesbians roll in the mud, and outside the Nazis beat the owner of the cabaret. Also, the scene when Liza Minelli thinks about the future child, sitting alone on the stairs.
]]>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:55:01 GMTnikolarulzTop 56/2/2008 8:55:01 AMOK, so here are mine: 1. Beauty and the Beast - OMG, especially the first five minutes with the creepy prologue... It really was scary! 2. Amadeus - The part when Salieri poses as Mozart's father... Guess I was too young to understand the concept, so I was ultra scared! 3. Titanic - Especially the opening underwater shots, with the broken doll on the ocean floor. 4. The Lion King - Of course, the part when Scar kills Mufasa. 5. Cabaret - When the two lesbians roll in the mud, and outside the Nazis beat the owner of the cabaret. Also, the scene when Liza Minelli thinks about the future child, sitting alone on the stairs. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 608

Number of people who tagged: 315

Number of times used: 941

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT608315941Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7161

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1003

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT71611691003Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 259

Number of people who tagged: 149

Number of times used: 416

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:38 GMT259149416Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/music/MemberTagFilms.aspxmusic
Number of films tagged: 4341

Number of people who tagged: 144

Number of times used: 481

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT4341144481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fun/MemberTagFilms.aspxfun
Number of films tagged: 459

Number of people who tagged: 142

Number of times used: 296

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:09 GMT459142296Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/musical/MemberTagFilms.aspxmusical
Number of films tagged: 174

Number of people who tagged: 109

Number of times used: 356

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:03:25 GMT174109356Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 525

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 624

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:39:10 GMT525102624Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 227

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 367

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:34:17 GMT22795367Tag